The way our system worked before Obamacare, is that if you broke your arm and couldn't afford it.. *everyone else* pays for your healthcare. Under the new law you are obligated to either get insurance or pay the tax (which this money can then be redistributed out to the states for medicaid). This guarantees that everyone is putting into the system.

The compulsory part was necessary because healthy young people can offset the costs of older folks with more medical issues (yet young people are still covered in the event of a problem).

The current day American political system (Actually this pretty much covers most world leadership these days) just reinforces the truth that we are descended from the B Ark. Fiction should not be our reality.

[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1340955182' post='4953872']
cut

The problem is that the 'tax' doesn't get you healthcare. You are taxed for not having healthcare, but don't receive any healthcare for the taxes you are forced to pay for not having it.
[/quote]

Um... I don't understand. If I pay for healthcare (which is obligatory) then I get healthcare...
It's not part of the tax (in Hungary). But it's just like a tax.... I'm forced to pay, but I do get that healthcare.

The way our system worked before Obamacare, is that if you broke your arm and couldn't afford it.. *everyone else* pays for your healthcare.

I don't think we're on the same page. How exactly does everyone else pay for it? What was the mechanism through which this transaction happened? Emergency rooms aren't free just because you're broke. Hospitals extend financing for this sort of thing. I'm unclear on how tax money ever got involved.

The current day American political system (Actually this pretty much covers most world leadership these days) just reinforces the truth that we are descended from the B Ark. Fiction should not be our reality.

What?

[quote name='Stormynature' timestamp='1340979902' post='4953963']
The current day American political system (Actually this pretty much covers most world leadership these days) just reinforces the truth that we are descended from the B Ark. Fiction should not be our reality.

What?
[/quote]
The 'B' Ark

so.... it looks like very few if any actually read the ruling because everything people are arguing about was covered there... well... excepting the B-ark reference

Repubs often talk about the horror of socialism.. that they don't like the idea of having to pay for other people's services. I'm surprised repubs wouldn't chomp at the bit to force all those people who are getting free healthcare already (because not being able to afford care doesn't mean you can't get it) to contribute into the system since those very same people are forcing everyone with existing healthcare plans to pay $1000+ more in premiums on average. The tax is compulsory.. you don't get to not pay it unless you get a healthcare plan. If you can't afford healthcare you get a tax credit anyway.

They were... in 2008 before Obama took up their plan. This plan was introduced by Newt Gingrich as an alternative to Hilarycare in the early 90s. It was designed by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. Mitt Romney was the first Republican to successfully get it passed while he was governor of Massachusetts. He ran in 2008 on the platform of bringing Romneycare to the national level, including the mandate to buy insurance. As he called it "no free riders". He even suggested president Obama use this system in 2009. Then president Obama actually did just that and so it became the most freedom killing thing ever.

This is why Obama was shocked that it didn't pass overwhelmingly. He expected it to easily clear a 3/4 majority in both houses. He very much misunderstood how Republicans have operated as a political party for nearly 20 years.

Yes, but they're called fines, not taxes. (emphasis mine) Following this logic, you would be fined for not buying healthcare, not taxed for it. There is a distinct difference between a fine and tax.

The federal government has the ability to levy both fines and taxes based on conditions which can involve either action or inaction. I went through painstaking efforts to provide examples of every single one of these things. If you could specify which two dots are not connecting for you, I will try to provide a few more examples to make it clearer that this has been happening for a century and to a lesser extent, since the founding.

But I'll try to put it another way up front. You are being taxed for a service you will use(healtcare). It was agreed upon that virtually all Americans will use healthcare, whether or not they pay for it. So this taxes them for their use of the system if they will not ensure the government won't be picking up the tab because they lack private insurance plan. Do this make more sense, or am I still not quite explaining this as clearly as I'd like?

But I'll try to put it another way up front. You are being taxed for a service you will use(healtcare). It was agreed upon that virtually all Americans will use healthcare, whether or not they pay for it. So this taxes them for their use of the system if they will not ensure the government won't be picking up the tab because they lack private insurance plan. Do this make more sense, or am I still not quite explaining this as clearly as I'd like?

Ok. It's 2014. The ACA is in full effect. I don't have insurance. I break my leg in June and go to the hospital. Now show me where in the bill it says that the government will pick up my tab if I don't have health insurance.

It is interesting that we don't look at the two parts that were repealed. Those were more interesting in terms of side-effects.

Basically by preventing the state hand-holding for medicaid and medicare, they ensure their faster [s]demise[/s] overhaul of the programs.

This wasn't prevented, it was made optional. Now a state has the option to decline additional Medicaid funding without declining all Medicaid funding. Only 26 states were signatories of this suit, so certainly at least 24 states will be getting the funding. I also presume most of the 26 states against the law will also take the grants. There may be a few who won't, but I'd bet money at least 2/3 of all states will participate.

However, the absence of health insurance immediately provokes a fine from the government. Its purpose is to coerce you into buying a product from a corporation. Put another way, there's a law in place that forces you to go into a store and buy a xbox (because it's been proven to cure depression) and if you don't you'll be levied a fine of a $1 a day for every day you don't own a xbox. So this is not an issue of inaction but an indirect method of coercion.

The reasoning behind this is that nearly everyone uses healthcare whether or not they pay for it, and if they don't, someone else will. If you don't own an XBox, I as an XBox owner, will not have to subsidize your XBox rentals. No so for healthcare.

I'm with you on the public option(heck, I prefer government operated healthcare). But this is constitutional and it is rational. It's just the conservative way of doing it. It is competent and it does fix a lot of problems.

[quote name='BladeOfWraith' timestamp='1341001870' post='4954078']
So this taxes them for their use of the system if they will not ensure the government won't be picking up the tab because they lack private insurance plan.

Ok. It's 2014. The ACA is in full effect. I don't have insurance. I break my leg in June and go to the hospital. Now show me where in the bill it says that the government will pick up my tab if I don't have health insurance.
[/quote]Government almost exclusively covers it, because hospitals providing the free care, are allowed to count it as a loss(meaning no tax money from a portion of the hospital/doctor's profits for the government).